Royal wedding expert Thomas who appeared on multiple news programmes exposed as Tommy from New York

Italian-American developed posh British accent 'in school production of Oliver Twist'

British monarchy enthusiast, Thomas J Mace-Archer-Mills Esq, was a familiar face in TV interviews during the Royal Wedding.

With a posh British accent, traditional attire, and a sense of authority on all things royal, the founder of the British Monarchist Society and Foundation was indeed a memorable character.

But it has been revealed the tweed jacket-wearing chap is in fact an Italian-American who grew up in upstate New York, whose real name is Thomas “Tommy” Muscatello, according to The Wall Street Journal.

He told the newspaper he spent his younger years in Bolton Landing, New York, and first developed a love for all things British when he was still in school.

A stint in a school production of Oliver Twist, in which he played Mr Sowerberry, provided the chance to practice a British accent, which he has since adopted.

He revealed the name, Mace-Archer-Mills, is an amalgamation of the names of friends and relatives.

His father said that as a teenager, his son had told him he wanted to one day “move over there and be part of what’s going on”.

Mr Mace-Archer-Mills has established himself as an authority on royal matters, not least as the leader of the British Monarchist Society and Foundation, which is described on its website as “the leading organisation for not only British, but international Monarchists”.

The group claims it “brings British traditions to the next level”.

As well as being known as “the most interviewed man” on the royal wedding, Mr Mace-Archer-Mills is editor in-chief of Crown and Country Magazine – “Britain’s Royal Themed Luxury Periodical” - which comes out twice a year.

The publication reportedly launched a “royal-themed cryptocurrency” earlier this year.

He is behind the book Their Majesties’ Mixers: A Royal Drinkology, which has the subheading: “When they reign, they pour.”

He also describes himself as the president of the Centre for British Royal Studies and says he has acted a consultant to the Serbian royal family on matters including the organisation of the Serbian royal wedding.

As part of his adopted British persona, Mr Mace-Archer-Mills told the WSJ he also befriended two unrelated people that he sees as his British grandmother and grandfather.

He did not reveal his current nationality.

The 38-year-old, who is often seen in bow ties, flat caps or top hats, shared his wisdom and views with multiple news channels at the time of the royal wedding.

In one interview with US news entertainment source The Daily Blast, he offered his thoughts on everything from Meghan Markle’s wedding dress to the relationship between her and the Duchess of Cambridge.

Commenting on why he believed Meghan was right not to wear her second, shoulder-less wedding dress during the ceremony, he said, in his usual upper-class accent: “You are in a chapel which is a royal peculiar, which means it is not under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Canterbury, it is directly under the jurisdiction of Her Majesty the Queen.

"So therefore protocol must be adhered to at all times. The Queen does not like frivolous sorts of flesh all over the place, so what Meghan wore was absolutely ideal for the ceremony that they had.”

He ended the broadcast, with the words: “Mwah my darlings, clinkies to you all.”

In other interviews, such as a broadcast on Europe 1, he claimed one of the biggest challenges for the new Duchess of Sussex, as someone who was used to being “in the spotlight” as a Hollywood actress, would actually be keeping quiet about certain causes at times.

He has also been featured in royal-themed stories and broadcasts by news sources including the BBC, The Economist, France's TF1 and Norway's TV2, according to WSJ,

Mr Mace-Archer-Mills did not immediately respond to The Independent’s request for comment.

Speaking about the original WSJ article, Mace-Archer-Mills told The Guardian: “The Wall Street Journal breached journalistic trust, omitted truths and mis-sold what the initial interview was for.

Many of the facts in the article are inaccurate and the Wall Street Journal itself was given many opportunities to ensure that the article was published with the most accurate information available. The WSJ chose not to adhere to the facts or their integrity.”